About your Search

20121011
20121011
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
contradictory public statements by the president, the secretary of state and the u.n. ambassador on libyan terrorist attacks. state department officials telling a house investigative committee that they never told anyone in the obama administration or anyone else for that matter, the terrorist attacks in bghazi were linked in any way whatsoever to an anti-muslim internet video. a video that the president himself over a three-week period of the cause of those attacks. someone in the administration is clearly not telling the truth. the house oversight committee chairman, daell issa, is not pleased. the president cannot be pleased. the public statements are contravened by both evidence and testimony now before the oversight committee. listen to secretary of state hillary clinton's remarks at andrews air force base at the return of the ceremonies for the four americans murdered in benghazi. >> we have seen rage and violen directed at american embassies over an awful, internet video that we had nothing to do it. it is hard for the american people to make sense of that, because it is senseless.
the state department and the u.n. are u.n. representatives knowing what was happening and why there was not the information flow as i see this properly. >> sure, but as you understood in the hearing even within single bureaucracies there are different points of view. they said today they were uncomfortable with the security in bengahzi and would like to see more assets. any military commander if you ask him, do you want more troops? the answer is yes. do you want more assets, the answer of course is yes. it just shows there is this difficult balance of being able to be accessible and doing your job as diplomats around the world, and having an appropriate level of security understanding that the risk is there and it is never going to be zero. >> eliot: look, p.j. you're making an important point. whenever you go back and mick a critique of the information flow, there will be failures and there will be judgments. that's the nature of bureaucracy. but the question then arises is this critique being driven by nefarious politics in a hearing by congressman issa where politics is in
of what everyone has talked about, what president obama talked-about at the u.n., the cascade of proliferation, the unraveling of the regime. that is what would follow from the saudi opposition of nuclear weapons, because it does not probably stop saudi arabia. there are other countries in the area that will want them as well. preventing that will become a very high priority for united states foreign policy. and by preventing that, i mean preventing the saudis from responding. we do not want to end up there, but think that is where we are the moment it becomes clear that they have nuclear weapons. what we do? one thing we will do, and quite confident is to apply the cold war deterrence model can and try to persuade the saudis that they do not need nuclear weapons if they are the victim of a nuclear attack. i think there's a lot of reason to think that we might not be as persuasive and making that case to the saudi government as we work to the germans and other allies during the cold war. another thing, we will go to the saudis and say, we will keep in place in sanctions regime
. >> eight days later. a u.n. ambassador who has no responsibility for embassies, intelligence, security at embassies, she was saying spontaneous, a demonstration that got out of hand. where did they come up with these things when everybody's country gut reaction was gee, it is september 11th. it is terror. bill: this is october 10 on the calendar. >> a month later. bill: 26 days away from an election. how many of these questions will be answered in that time, any? >> i that you don't know but i do think there will be a huge paper trail of these things. the government doesn't do anything one-on-one. they do it of course, everybody get as blind carbon copy or everybody get as carbon copy of tease e-mails. i think you will see more and more people come forward. because look, americans die. why did they die? was it a political decision? was it just criminal negligence? i don't think this is something that fell between the cracks, gee they weren't weren't focusing on security on a most dangerous part of the world on a date on an anniversary that everyone in the world knows about. bill: thank
now move that the u.n. classified document of september 11, 2012 appearing above the signature of the ambassador be placed in the record. without objection, so ordered. the staff will distribute it. additionally, i move that the documents of march 28, 2012 we place in the record. without objection, so ordered. additionally -- and these will have to be printed -- the document of august 2, 2012 and of july 9, 2012 be placed in the record. without objection, so ordered. >> mr. chairman, to be clear, we already have the documents? >> in real time, a whistleblower has provided these documents. we confirm these documents are identical to the documents being withheld. it is the determination of the chair that these documents were responsive, on classified, and appropriate for discovery. >> i was just asking if we already had the documents. >> if you notice, i am looking at one on an ipad. we have some and others. they will be circulated to bauxites. they are now -- they will be circulated to both sides. they are now part of the hearing. ambassador, i do not like doing this. ultimately
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)